"EARTH DAY" IS A FRAUD DAY! APRIL 22! ITS LENIN'S BIRTHDAY! SHARE THE FACTS WITH ALL YOUR LIBERAL ASSOCIATES AND OTHER USEFUL IDIOTS!

 HEY ALL YOU USEFUL POLITICALLY CORRECT LIBERAL MORONS WHO CHANT "HAPPY EARTH DAY" AND PARADE AROUND FEELING SELF RIGHTEOUS HERE ARE SOME FACTS FOR YOU!

 

THE FRAUD WHO WAS PART OF THE EARTH DAY BAND WAGON IS IRA EINHORN. READ UP.. AND BY THE WAY WHAT DAY IS EARTH DAY?? APRIL 22.   

April 22 is also Lenin's birthday --- coincidence?

READ ALL YOUR EARTH GURU!!! Lenin or Ira?? 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA !

If there was one certainty about Ira Einhorn, it’s that he loved the spotlight. The man once referred to in the press as a “burly philosopher” was active in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam years, ran for Mayor of Philadelphia in 1971, and took great pride in claiming that he was instrumental in launching the first Earth Day celebration in 1970.

 EARTH DAY MY ASS!

CLIMATE CHANGE LIARS.. 50 YEARS OF HOAXES. ARE SCIENTISTS REALLY STUPID OR JUST PAID LACKEYS?

Wrong Wrong and Wrong AGAIN

: 50 Years of Failed "Eco-pocalyptic" Predictions

 Read my blog about global Warming linked below! 

https://john-gaultier.blogspot.com/2019/10/climate-change-liars-50-years-of-hoaxes.html

 

 

NOW READ THE FACTS!

The year was 1970. That was a long time before the rise of conservative talk radio, Cable TV and Internet alternatives. The Big Three national TV networks of CBS, ABC & NBC absolutely dominated viewership; and newspapers such as The New York Slimes and The Washington Compost -- whose subversive propaganda was presented in a more subtle manner back then -- commanded the attention and respect of even many Republican Americans. Therefore, when it came time for the Globalists to "flood the zone" with wall-to-wall propaganda for this or that event of the day, few people were mentally equipped to counter it. For that reason, the big propaganda push for the first "Earth Day" went by with scarcely a word of criticism or analysis. After all, aren't we all in favor of clean air and water?

Doing the honors as National Master-of-Ceremonies for the Globalist Scam was none other than the closet lifelong One-Worlder dubbed "the most trusted man in America" -- the CBS Anchorman and Council on Foreign Relations member, Walter Cronkite. Here's a but a small whiff of the devious bullshit which the vile charlatan hurled at an unsuspecting public during his special broadcast:

"The gravity of the message of Earth Day came through -- Act or Die."

Walter Cronkite emceed the stupid hype of the original Earth Day, in 1970 with Ira Einhorn as the MC.

At that time, the "threat" to the "ecology" was vaguely defined as "pollution." Leftist students staged disruptive "die-ins" in makeshift coffins at some of the nation's airports; and predictably screamed "police brutality" when the Boys in Blue came to clear them out. Hippy scum and other assorted dupes marched peacefully in major cities like New York, Chicago & Los Angeles. But it wasn't until about 10 year later that the more specific climate bogeymen of "Acid Rain," "Ozone Depletion," and "Greenhouse Effect" were foisted upon the public --- with the "Greenhouse Effect," ™ later dubbed "Global Warming" ™ and later dubbed again as "Climate Change" ™ -- then becoming the dominant scare-hoax which endures to this day.

The "we must act" hype over the manufactured event was parlayed into the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, later that same year. Though President Richard Nixon was pressured into going along with the EPA's establishment and powerless to stop it (here), he later claimed that he never wanted the agency to become the tyrannical regulatory monster that it soon began to grow into. Then, as it is today, the regulatory and tax objectives of "Earth Day" remain the same:

* Grind down middle class living standards
* Control individual behavior and ultimately, movement
* Increase "revenue" for the state
* Empower the state to control private enterprise
* Transfer national sovereignty to globalist agencies

It's all about, and has always been about, The New World Order -- One World Government. But don't take the word of us "conspiracy theorists," ™ -- you can hear "the agenda" straight from the mouth of the aforementioned "most trusted man in America" himself. We'll show it to you after these images.

1. With Democrats in control of both the Congress and Senate; and big media unopposed -- the Republican Nixon was maneuvered into signing the EPA into law. // 2. The Greening of the Reds. // 3. April 22 is also Lenin's birthday --- coincidence?

 

 

 

The Earth Day Fraud  Became Known As ‘The Unicorn Killer’  A MURDERER!

But it was a grisly murder, not his activism or his intellect, that eventually made the man known as “The Unicorn Killer” a household name around the world. His bizarre story was one filled with enough twists and turns that made it feel like the work of a Hollywood screenwriter.

Ira Einhorn was born in Philadelphia in 1940 to a middle-class Jewish family and he later studied and taught at the University of Pennsylvania. Throughout the 1960s, Einhorn became a leading voice in the counterculture movement and has been referred to as “Philadelphia's answer to Abbie Hoffman and Allen Ginsberg.” The Village Voice called Einhorn "indisputably Philadelphia's head hippie," and the city’s “number one freak." He was charismatic and influential, with a wide range of friends and associates from all walks of life.

Einhorn was one of the founders of Earth Day. That narrative has been in the public consciousness for decades, due in part to a famous photo of Einhorn onstage at the podium at the first Earth Day event in Philadelphia on April 22, 1970.

Ira Einhorn at the April 1970 Earth Day celebration in Philadelphia [AP Photo/Temple University]

Because of his status in the local environmental community, he was allowed to take the stage, which turned into a 30-minute episode in which Einhorn got the useful idiot masses to cheer him on. .

Two of the original leaders of Earth Day in Philadelphia later wrote, “Much to our dismay, we now find that Einhorn … has been taking credit for initiating or organizing Earth Day. He is not telling the truth. Einhorn, given a small role on the stage at Earth Day, grabbed the microphone and refused to give up the podium for 30 minutes, thinking he would get some free television publicity. We just waited until he had completed his 'act' and then got on to the serious business at hand: the keynote speech of U.S. Sen. Edmund Muskie, author of the landmark Clean Air Act of 1970.

Earth Day was the brainchild of Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, a staunch environmentalist who hoped to provide unity to the grassroots environmental movement and increase ecological awareness.

Beyond the activism and the boisterous public persona, there was a darker side to Ira Einhorn. He was a womanizer whose domineering personality would sometimes erupt into violence. On at least two occasions prior to 1977, the hippie guru attacked women who rejected him. In one case he strangled a woman until she was unconscious. In another, he hit a woman over the head with a bottle. In his journal, Einhorn wrote, "Violence always marks the end of a relationship."

By 1977, Einhorn had been in a relationship with a 30-year-old woman from Texas named Holly Maddux for five years. By all accounts, Einhorn dominated Maddux and, eventually, the young woman had enough. Maddux worked up the courage to leave Einhorn, who was furious about her decision.

In September 1977, Einhorn lured Maddux back to his Philadelphia apartment by threatening to throw all of her belongings into the street if she did not come retrieve them. Maddux returned to the apartment, the two were seen at a movie the following night, and then Maddux vanished. Einhorn denied any involvement in Maddux’s disappearance, telling anyone who asked that the woman had gone to a nearby food co-op and never returned.

The Maddux family hired a private investigator to look into the matter. Over the next few months, Einhorn’s downstairs neighbor complained of terrible smells and dark liquid leaking into their apartment. Neighbors also remembered hearing screams and thumps around the time of Maddux’s disappearance.

Holly Maddux [Getty Images]

Einhorn, in the meantime, enjoyed a fellowship for a semester at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. Finally, armed with a search warrant based on the evidence provided by the investigator the Maddux family had hired, the police searched Einhorn’s apartment on March 29, 1979, and found Holly Maddux’s partially mummified body in a trunk in the bedroom closet.

Maddux’s skull had been fractured in at least six places by a blunt object. After 18 months, her decomposed corpse weighed only 37 pounds. The trunk had been packed with styrofoam, air fresheners, and newspapers. It was later revealed that after Maddux’s disappearance, Einhorn asked two teenage girls he had been seeing to help him dump a trunk into the Schuylkill River — the girls flatly refused.

Philadelphia police arrested Ira Einhorn and his bail was set at $40,000. At his bail hearing, respected community members took the stand in his defense, arguing that he wasn’t capable of committing such a ghastly crime. A wealthy socialite from Montreal paid Einhorn’s bail and a trial date was set for the spring of 1981.

In January 1981, Einhorn, fearing that his freedom was at stake, fled to Ireland and assumed a false name. There was a sighting of the fugitive in 1986 but for all intents and purposes, Ira Einhorn had disappeared somewhere in Europe. In 1993, Philadelphia’s District Attorney decided to try Einhorn for murder in absentia.

Einhorn’s attorney argued that Holly Maddux’s body had been planted in his client’s apartment. It took a jury only two hours to find Einhorn guilty, and the judge handed down a life sentence.

The years dragged on and it appeared, to the anguish of the Maddux family, that Einhorn would never be found and justice would never be served. But some investigators never gave up, including the Philadelphia District Attorney's fugitive-and-extradition chief, Richard DiBenedetto, who hunted Einhorn doggedly for 16 years.

DiBenedetto’s persistence paid off and, in June 1997, Einhorn was arrested in the countryside in southwest France, living in a farmhouse under the name of “Eugene Mallon” with a Swedish wife. His French neighbors believed he was a writer. The hunt for Ira Einhorn was over, but the extradition process back to the United States would prove to be long and arduous.

Although Einhorn had not been sentenced to death in absentia in 1993, his lawyers argued that he would face the death penalty if he were extradited to the United States. Legal proceedings dragged on for several years until Einhorn was finally sent back to the U.S. in July 2001. It was the first time in 20 years he had been on American soil. No longer able to hide under an assumed name while living a charmed life in the south of France, Einhorn now had to face the music.

The following video shows Einhorn after losing his extradition battle, ranting to journalists after attempting to dramatically slit his throat. Warning — his injury looks gruesome, although it was apparently not actually that serious, and he was able to walk himself to the ambulance.

Einhorn, now dubbed “The Unicorn Killer” (Einhorn means “unicorn” in German) by the press, stood trial in Philadelphia. He took the stand and claimed that the CIA had murdered Holly Maddux and planted her body in his apartment because he knew too much about about paranormal military research.

In October 2002, Ira Einhorn was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The presiding judge called Einhorn ''an intellectual dilettante who preyed on the uninitiated, uninformed, unsuspecting, and inexperienced.''

Today, the 78-year-old man who charmed the counterculture and the mainstream alike and who managed to avoid authorities for 16 years sits in a prison cell in Pennsylvania, knowing he will never again be the toast of the town or the center of attention.

 

The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution. We Must fight to make sure that the left does not use the Court to Make Laws.

ITS TIME PATRIOTS STOPPED THE IRRATIONAL 9 PERSON BODY FROM BECOMING THE FINAL ARBITERS OF THE CONSTITUTION 

By BENJAMIN R. DIERKER

Americans have been told a lie about the constitutional balance of power. Despite activist assertions to the contrary, the Supreme Court is not a supreme constitutional council with the sole and final say on legal matters. We have accepted a larger than life picture of the judiciary, and it is slowly destroying individual liberty and the constitutional order laid down by the founders.

The Constitution outlines the role of the courts, but for some time they have been operating beyond their proper function. We must change how we see them, understand their appropriate role, and stop allowing the growth of power. Each new interpretation of plain text that widens the judiciary’s authority is a dangerous violation of the separation of powers. If executive overreach concerns you, judicial overreach doubly should.

To correct a few common misconceptions, the judiciary’s rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the only or even final arbiter on the Constitution. And the judiciary is not a truly co-equal branch of government.

Court Opinions Are Not Supreme Law

Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land…

The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. Conspicuously missing are Supreme Court decisions. While the court is known for deciding the constitutionality of laws, its decisions are not themselves laws. In the strictest sense, the opinions rendered by the Supreme Court are binding only on the parties before it.

The Supreme Court is just that, a court. It was established to adjudicate cases and controversies before it. Courts cannot make general pronouncements of law; they exist to settle disputes.

In fact, the Supreme Court is prohibited from issuing advisory opinions or ruling on laws that do not arise through litigation. Justices are not consultant scholars but arbiters in the limited setting of a legal case, not general legal or public policy matters. Courts issue their rulings in the form of judicial opinions, laying out the holding and the rationale.

Holdings are decision on legal issues, and the commentary around it is history, legal reasoning, or dicta. Sometimes dicta matters and sometimes it is pontification. That is, not all of an opinion is legally binding, and what is binding is a settlement of a particular, and often limited, legal issue.

Supreme Court opinions are commonly viewed as the law of the land because they often involve decisions on the constitutionality of government actions. We assume when the high court rules, it is articulating what the Constitution says. The Constitution is the supreme law, but it is also a plain text. That text is the law, the ruling is not. As Justice Story said of judicial opinions in Swift v. Tyson, “They are, at most, only evidence of what the laws are, and are not, of themselves, laws.”

Further, if the Supreme Court rules one way, it is likely to rule that way again, so continuing to push a law or policy that contradicted a previous decision may be futile. The precedent the court sets effectively prevents the same issue from arising, because lower courts will rule in accordance with that precedent.

Still, what the Court produces is not law, but a determination on how it interpreted an existing law for the purpose of settling a specific case or controversy. When the same issues and facts arise, they can be settled based on that precedent. These rulings are legitimate and important, but are not the final word on policy matters for the whole country.

Supreme Court Not Final Arbiter

For all its power and influence, the Supreme Court is still just a court. It cannot decide which laws to rule on, because it can only make decisions about the case before it. It cannot revisit old cases unless new parties bring a similar issue before it. It cannot make unsolicited rulings nor advise on constitutionality to the President or Congress. Despite our modern picture, the court sits in judgment of cases. It is not a philosophical reservoir of wisdom.

It is not even the exclusive entity with the power to interpret the Constitution. Madison wrote in Federalist 49, “The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, none of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers.” Thomas Jefferson further noted in a letter to William Jarvis, “to consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions…would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

It is clear from the Constitution itself and the founders’ writing that each branch can and must interpret the Constitution and its own powers. Jefferson also explained why the courts deal in constitutional interpretation the most, writing: “judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because…the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department.” It happens to be their work, but that does not grant them exclusive or ultimate power over it.

When legislating, Congress debates whether prospective legislation is constitutional, and the president makes a similar determination about whether to sign or veto. In unilateral action, the president interprets his authority and the constitutional framework. Article II Section I requires the president to swear an oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” How else can he do this without interpreting it? Indeed, his loyalty is to the Constitution itself, not necessarily the opinions of the Court or certain laws of Congress.

Because each branch relies on the others to carry out their directives, the judiciary cannot enforce its rulings. That is up to the executive. When the judiciary rules, the president may have a different view and theoretically choose not to legitimize quasi-legislative action by not enforcing the court’s decision. The prudence of this depends on the circumstances, and while institutional legitimacy is best served by following court orders, objectively illegitimate ruling may demand rejection. Consider Dred Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson.

The Supreme Court Is Not Co-Equal

The three branches of government are often described as co-equal, each with powers that check and balance perfectly. They are equal in constitutional legitimacy, but not in power. The American judiciary was initially conceived to be the least powerful. The Constitution even describes it last and shortest among branches.

The courts are not intended to legislate, execute, craft, or decide policy.

The courts are not intended to legislate, execute, craft, or decide policy. They are meant to provide citizens an avenue for recourse to reconcile wrongs for which they have causes of action. Explaining the role of the judiciary, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 78 that the judiciary would possess “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” He goes on to say, “It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power…”

The judiciary holds one small but distinct power. If the Framers were not so keen on separation of powers, the judicial power may have been included with the legislature or executive. Rather than this, they placed the small power in its own branch, not to empower judges over legislators or citizens, but to prevent abuse of justice by the other branches. It is independent because the small authority is important, not because the duty requires or instills great power.

When written and ratified, the Constitution only called for a judiciary made up of one supreme court, on which only one chief justice was required. It was not conceived as a large or powerful branch of government, but an institutional check on the others compactly maintaining the judicial power of the United States.

Of course the judiciary is larger today, and its growth has mostly been legitimate by deliberate congressional action. But the minimal scale and scope of the constitutionally mandated judiciary shows it was never conceived of as a body laying down the law of the land on policy position and impacting the entire country.

Growth through acquiesce should be viewed with great skepticism as a violation of separation of powers. And certainly growth through packing the Supreme Court with additional justices should be abhorrent to liberty-loving Americans.

The Courts Should Be Respected, Not Praised

It is past time to clarify what the American judiciary is and how it was intended to operate. The courts are legitimate and necessary, but are not meant to create or shape policy. They were designed to settle disputes, and that means ruling for the parties before them.

Rulings from the Supreme Court should not affect the whole country–and certainly not rulings from district courts.

The national obsession with the Supreme Court, and accompanying acceptance of its power grab, is anti-republican. If we continue down this road, our politics will grow uglier as fights to replace justices become further embittered, and our law will be held captive by an oligarchy.

We have grown to view the court as a body of philosopher kings rather than civil servants who settle specific arguments. Rulings from the Supreme Court should not affect the whole country–and certainly not rulings from district courts.

You don’t go to the courts to solve general matters; for that, you go to the legislature. You go to the court to resolve particular disputes. For the health of the nation and the rule of law, it is critical that we stop using courts as weapons to shape law and view them as avenues of recourse to resolve limited cases and controversies.

_________________________________________________

ONLY PATRIOTS CAN CHANGE THE TRAJECTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT. 

REVOLUTION AND AMEND THE CONSTITION TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE SHITHOLE THAT IS WASHINGTON DC